You know what I hate?

I hate the "What, me worry?" routine that highly partisan Republicans affect when it becomes painfully clear their elected politicians have behaved shadily. Like: "I'm not even really clear on what laws Bush broke in spying on Americans without warrants." I mean, seriously guys. Heavy conservative hitters like Barron's and Bruce Fein are breaking lockstep and using the I-word in response to the revelations about the Bush administration's wiretaps, and you're not at all concerned?

Last night, at an otherwise lovely gathering with Neotokyo and other UCSD homies, one of their friends was contorting himself into that particular rhetorical pretzel. He also made an argument I find much more dangerous. "So what if the president made a few unwarranted wiretaps," he said. "I have nothing to hide." This bleating is enabled by privilige, as it's the casual complacency of people who are used to operating at great perceived liberty. More and more, contemporary Republicans seem to be taking the line that the War on Terrorism - which has not, as yet, necessitated any financial sacrifices on the part of our profligate culture - will of course necessitate a limit on the liberties we can hope for from our own government. This is the argument hinted at by Neotokyo's friend, and advanced by Senator John Cornyn when he said on the Sunday shows that, "None of your civil liberties matter much after you're dead." I know that I'm not the only person who found Russ Feingold's allusive riposte - "Give me liberty or give me death" - note-perfect. Out of rhetorical curiosity, which of those sentiments is the more Un-American?